Pages

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The gaming press is a pretty powerful entity in this industry. The
consumers go to them for the latest in gaming news, including what
is about to come out, what companies are partaking in less than
consumer-friendly business practices, and other news a gamer might
want to know. The publishers rely on them to get information to their
customers and effectively spread the word on projects they are
working on. However, the press also has one critical function to
serve: To review video games. Game reviews are supposed to be an
important part of the gaming ecosystem. It is, theoretically,
immensely helpful when contemplating the purchase of a game to have a
collection of opinions regarding it. They should help to distinguish
between bad games, average games, and good games, but how effective
are they in that capacity and why do they sometimes get called into
question? This week, I attempt to figure out the answer.

Before we get to that, we need to understand the process behind most
reviews on major game review websites. More often than not, major
review sites receive copies of the games they are to review a couple
of days to a week prior to the scheduled release date. The reviewer
in question then has to use their free time (I am not aware of a
review outlet that actually allots time for its staff to play games
on the job since they have other duties to attend to, though I am
sure they exist.) to play far enough through the game to get a good
understanding of it (since it is rare that they play through to the
end) yet leave enough time to gather their thoughts and write a
review about it. The pressure will be on them to finish the review as
quickly as possible because the faster it gets uploaded to the site,
the more page views it will get and more advertising money the site
recieves.

Obviously, this style of reviewing, which is commonplace in the
industry, is not very condusive to writing reviews of the highest
quality. One of the biggest issues in this is time. Reviewers are
rarely given an adequate time to write very good reviews. First off
all, games nowadays usually take around 10-12 hours to beat (30 or
more for an RPG). For someone who has a job, a social network of
people they communicate with regularly, and many of the responsibilities life throws at us, playing through a game that long
in so short a time while trying to analyze it critically is asking
for a lot. It is not likely that the person in question will be able
to throughly explore a game and look for pros and cons beyond what is
immediately obvious. Any extra moment they spend playing the game
reduces the amount of time left over to gather their thoughts and
write the actual review, which is already lacking enough. In the
remaining days before the deadline, they need to structure their
thoughts on the game and all of its aspects. Then they need to plan
out and compose a written review that encapsulates all of those
thoughts as best as it can. Considering the timeframe often required
to write these reviews, it is a miracle that they are anywhere near
coherent. The amount of time to write and proofread those reviews is
nowhere near enough to do anything more than list-off what the game
does and whether they think it is good or bad. Going into any real
detail is almost completely out-of-the-question.

The
less obvious, yet more critical problem is the window in which the
review is released. Many people would, quite logically I might add,
say that the best time to release a review of a game is somewhere
around 3-4 days before/after it is released. However, I disagree with
this for a couple of very important reasons. The first reason for
this is that a review published within the release window for a game
will not sway people who are on the fence about buying the game. When
a game is released, the only people who buy it on the very first day
it comes out will be people who were already eagerly anticipating the
game. Regardless of how positive or negative the review will be, they
will buy the game. All the review will do is reinforce the decision
in their head (even
a negative review will be seen as a personal attack
and will not be recognized as a legitimate opinion). The same can be
said about negative reviews and people who will not buy the game.
Anyone who is on the fence regarding the purchase of a video game
will not be immediately swayed. They will often wait for anywhere
from a few weeks to a month because of my second point regarding the
window of time: Real good conversation on a video game only arises in
the weeks after its release. It is only then that people have bought,
fully-played, and digested a game and all of its parts. This is when
people can critically analyze the minutiae of the game in question and
figure out exactly why the game is as good or bad as it is. We saw
this with the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy. Most reviewers, in a
rush to get their reviews out on release date, did not get the chance
to play through the entirety of the game and reach the ending. A few
weeks later, after the game was out, many people actually had the
chance to experience the finale of Mass Effect 3 and... reacttoit.
It was only then that people were able to look into it and think
about what worked/did not work about it. People do not form opinions
in a vaccum. Since we are social creatures, we think and form
opinions by talking with other people. By gathering information from
different viewpoints and perspectives, we gain intelligence and form
better opinions. This is why I do not think releasing reviews on the
same day a game comes out is a good idea. It is difficult for a
reviewer to form detailed, well-informed opinions when they have not
had the time or even the ability to discuss the game and gain the
necessary prespectives of other people nor have they the time to
fully comprehend and analyze their own prespective. It is a recipe
for disaster.

Another
serious issue, though one I suspect is blown out of proportion, is
the fact that game reviews are supported by advertisers within the
games industry. Everybody knows that major game publishers like
Activision or EA buy ad space on review hubs like IGN or Gamespot.
Because of this, there is a perception that these reviews are being
bought by publishers in order to make their games look better. It is
not that hard to suspect when sites like IGN release an article
titled “Why
Do People Hate EA?”
and only ask Peter Moore, Chief Operating Officer of EA, the reasons
behind it instead of asking the aforementioned people. Again, I do
not believe this is as serious an issue as people make it out to be.
I think that the people who write these reviews generally stand
behind them. However, it is still a issue worth bringing up and
discussing as it does have the potential to impact reviews and how
the gaming press thinks with regards to the games they talk about.
There are well-known cases of reviewers being forced into embargos as
a result of receiving review copies of certain games, like how Konami
forbid
mention of the cut-scene length and install times
of Metal Gear Solid 4. It is not an easy problem to solve and there
is no simple solution beyond not showing game advertisements, which
would cut into profits.

One
last problem that I am far from the first person to make note of is
the over-inflation of review scores. A scale of 1 to 10 is often used
to indicate the overall quality of a game in comparison to other
games. On this kind of scale, 5 is often denoted as average simply
because it is in the middle. Anything above a 5 is above average and
below a 5 is below average. This makes sense and is intuitive for the
most part. However, this is not necessarily how review scores (which
are a terrible way to handle reviews, but have been accepted as
commonplace simply because of the fast-paced nature of today's
society) work. If you were to go to review-aggregate site Metacritic,
you would find that there are many more average or
positively-reviewed games than there are negative ones. This is
simply not possible mathematically. If there are more positive
reviews than average or low reviews, then the praise becomes the new
accepted standard for average and the review scores should be placed
back in equilibrium. We are not seeing this and I think I know the
reason why. The reason for this inflation of review scores (and
resulting decrease in credibility and weight that reviews carry) is
that the fans of franchises cannot tolerate reviews that are neither
perfect nor near perfect. We saw this when fans of the Uncharted
series lashedout
against reviewers for giving the upcomming-at-the-time (as in, they
had not played it yet) third game an 8 out of 10, which is well-above
average on a 1 to 10 scale. The game was not ever released, yet
people claimed that the reviewers had “no clue what they are
talking about.” It is a huge testament to the source of many of the
problems with game reviews.

In fact, upon very close scrutiny, many of the other problems that plague game reviewers and the reviews they write come down to the
fans who read them. The reason they are rushed to finish these
reviews before a game is even out is because fans do not want to
wait. They want to see opinions on upcomming games as soon as
possible. Fans cannot wait until popular consensus has arisen and
critical analysis can be had because fans do not want that. It is a
desire for instant gratification and someone to support their
opinions of the serieses they love and hate that drives them. A
critical eye and valuable insight into the fine details of a game is
not wanted by the masses. The request is for a “You are right” or
an “I think you are wrong” (which will be preceived as a “selling
out”). The only problem that does not come down to the fans is the
issue of advertisers, and that is complex enough as it is. This is
frustrating for people like myself who want insight and critique of
the medium. To improve the quality of reviews from major gaming
journalists, we need to fundamentally alter the culture driving them.
This is not an easy thing to do as it would require much work and be
met with much resistance. I do not even know if the effort would be
worth it. But at the very least, this is discussion worth having.
This is something that needs to be said.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Most of
the people who play games agree that they are able to let us explore
new and interesting worlds in ways that books or movies simply
cannot, something I have discussed myself on several occasions.
However, when we talk about this ability, the same word tends to crop
up over and over again: This word is “immersion.” All gamers have
at least a rough idea of what it is, but very rarely do we discuss
the idea in any sort of meaningful way. This is my attempt to try and
remedy that. My intention is to try to figure out how developers can
increase the immersion of players in their games. First, let us
define “immersion” for the purposes of this article. If we can
nail down a definition, then it will be easier to have an informed
discussion about it because we will all be one the same page.
Immersion is the truest form of a willing
suspension of disbelief. It is when the player
feels like that he/she is an active participant of the video game
despite knowing that he/she is not actually in the game. When someone
is truly “immersed” in a game, they tend to think of the people
and places depicted not as models and textures put together in a game
engine with working physics and number-driven systems. Instead, they
think of them as people who are in a world and doing what they do
with a delibrate and driven purpose. Designers and developers usually
strive to achieve this feeling of “immersion” for the end user.
There are a number of tips and strategies that they use to make this
happen.

One of
the simplest thing people a developer can do to facilitate immersion
is to maintain an internal logic and consistency in the setting,
characters, and plotline. Please note that this is not a call for
realism in games (I have already
discussed that). It is simply saying that there
should be a rationale behind every thing that is going on. The world
must have its own rules and systems that it adheres to. As a general
rule, if the world in question uses magic/technology and it adheres
to a specific system, then it must never deviate from that system
without some sort of contingencies set in place. For this example,
let us say that we are talking about a fantasy world with magic that
has a built in system of equivilent exchange (where every good thing
that happens due to magic must be tempered with an equivilant
negative side-effect and vice-versa). If in this world, a sorcerer
successfully revived his dead wife free and clear with no downsides,
then the player would (rightfully) call foul. Something that
incongruous would need either adequate foreshadowing that alludes to
the possibility of someone doing this (a skilled and powerful
sorcerer can explain how that could theoretically happen sometime
before the scene), hang
a lampshade on it during the scene (someone
points out in the middle of the resurrection that it should not be
possible), or provide an explanation after the fact showing that the
sorcerer technically did follow the rules and actually did sacrifice
something dear to him in an equivilant exchange. These are all tools
a skilled writer can use to explain away things incongruous to their
internal systems and logic.

It is
also worth noting that an designer does not need to worry about never
breaking logic even once. It is bound to happen eventually. What they
have to worry about is not breaking internal logic too often and not
doing it with major plot events. Players can generally forgive a few
minor errors and even justify them in their minds. However, take
advantage of this fact too often, and the players will begin to lose
immersion. This theshold at which the immersion is broken and
disbelief is no longer suspended varies wildly from person to person.
Therefore, a writer should be extremely careful when making major
breaks with continuity. This internal logic also extends into
characters and their motivations, so a writer needs to keep in mind
what a character's personality and goals are when determining what
the character should do in the plot. If game developers want to
maintain the feeling of immersion, they need to define a rationale
behind how the world works and maintain it to the best of their
abilities. We accept that real world logic does not always apply. The
problem arises when a world's own logic no longer applies to itself.

While
the previous tip can be applied to any form of media in general, this
next tip applies to games in particular. It is a very good idea to
synergize story and gameplay as much as possible and avoid Gameplay
and Story Segregation. One of the more
immersion breaking things a game can do is give the player a
situation that he/she could ordinarily overcome using conventional
gameplay only for them to circumvent it somehow. One of most
well-known examples of this in action is the death of Aeris/Aerith in
Final
Fantasy VII. In Final Fantasy VII, player
characters are killed in battle quite often (depending on the
player's skill, obviously). To revive these characters, there is an
item called a Pheonix Down which revives them so that they can keep
fighting. However, when Sephiroth kills Aeris in a cutscene,
there is no ability to revive her with similar means. Her death is
required for the plot to advance. They never once lampshade, subvert,
or acknowledge the possibility of using items or healing spells,
which is weird because Final Fantasy has done permanent-death for a
player character before. In the
fifth game in the franchise, the player's party
is being attacked by the villain, ExDeath. To save the others, one of
the party uses his crystal to gain powers well beyond what humans are
capable of. He fights ExDeath and holds his own despite the fact that
his HP is at 0 and he should be dead. After the fight, the others try
to heal and revive him with common spells and items the player is
quite likely to have. They find that he exhausted his power so
throughly that he was beyond healing. He was a dead man. Furthermore,
unlike Final Fantasy VII where Aeris dies and the player potentially
loses a party member he/she trained at the expense of others, the
designers of Final Fantasy V had the dead party member transfer his
skills to his daughter, meaning that the player is not inconvienced
by the plot's insistence of killing off a party member.

Some
people reading this might view this as an extension of my previous
point about willing suspension of disbelief and internal logic. To
that I say, I am glad you are paying attention, because you are
correct. The problem is that many games simply do not take that into
account. Developers have an irritating tendency to treat the plotline
and setting of a game as separate to the gameplay when that is simply
not the case. Gameplay is a natural extension to the events at hand.
It informs the player as to how the world they are now exploring
works. If those mechanics are incongruous with the story or the
setting, it makes the world look disjointed and players will be more
likely to see the cracks.

Another
thing that games can do to increase the likelihood of player
immersion is to avoid something I learned about from Chris Franklin,
also known as Campster,
of Errant
Signal fame (which you should be watching):
“ludonarrative dissonance.” In layman's terms, ludonarrative
dissonance is when themes and morals present in the game's storyline
are directly contradicted by the gameplay. This is not like the
previous point, where internal logic is broken. When this concept is
invoked, the game's world can, not necessarily will, still be
following its own rules, but it fails at upholding the underlying
moral message throughout. It can even be presenting two opposing
messages, one in the story and one in the gameplay, knowingly or not.
This is often a problem in modern miltary-themed first person
shooters. Many of them love to try to be serious commentaries on the
harsh realities and reprecussions of war. However, at the same time,
they appear to revel in the bloodshed and slaughter of hundreds of
people that the player must defeat in order to advance. These two
facts are in stark contrast with each other. Developers cannot talk
about loss when directing the player to kill thousands of people, no
matter how “evil” they are portrayed. The theme of the story is
undercut by the morality presented in the gameplay where killing all
the enemies is presented as a “good” action because they are
terrorists and/or in the way of the player's objective. Though it
does not affect everyone, this kind of contradiction can be extremely
jarring to some people, breaking their immersion and even their
enjoyment of the game.

The last
piece of advice I have for developers seeking to facilate immersion
in games is to simply make games that play well. There is a lot to be
said for a game that is fun to play. When a player enjoys a game and
is having an engrossing and entertaining experience, they are much
less likely to analyze the plot and look for plot holes and logical
fallicies/inconsistencies. On the other hand, if the game is boring
and uniteresting to play, then the player will more often than not
examine the story of the game in greater detail since that will be
the only thing keeping their attention. It is not always possible to
plug every plot hole or account for every inconsistency, so the best
solution is sometimes to just distract players with good gameplay (as
loathe as I am to admit it). If it is of high enough quality, then we
are more than able to forgive a few mistakes or missteps.

Immersion
is a difficult thing to achieve. It requires so many interlocking
systems and conditions to come together in complete synergy.
Furthermore, it also depends on the player and his/her mindset, which
is inherently fickle. It is not possible for a developer to create a
game that is 100% immersive for everyone. All they can do is
facilitate immersion by creating as coherent and interesting a game
as possible. Focus on building and maintaining an internal logic with
both the story and the gameplay and how they tie into each other.
While this seems like a tall order, it is much simpler than one might
think. All it requires is going in and thinking about the story.
Writers should ask themselves if there is another, easier and more
sensible way for events to unfold and ask other people on staff and
with a critical eye to take a moment and look it over. Many series
have loremasters and dedicated wikis for that serve this very
purpose. There really is no excuse for not doing something so
incredibly simple.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

I
have been playing games for almost my entire life. Games are very
much a huge focus of mine, which is why I love to write about them.
One thing you learn when being a part of this sub-culture is that the
people who populate it tend to be very... tenaciously
fanatic
when comes to decisions they make. This causes gamers to debate a
lot. One of the major debates that have cropped up more often of late
than usual is whether PCs or dedicated gaming consoles are superior
to the other. There are points to be made for either side. This week,
I try to apply my analysis onto this debate and try to come up with a
satisfactory answer. For this analysis, I will look at several
factors and analyze them to see whether PCs or Consoles do better in
that category. Once that is all said and done, I will render my final
verdict. Since I am a console gamer who has only recently picked up
PC gaming, there is a possibility for biases, just a forewarning.

The first category we will look into is Initial Investment. On the
console side, the initial cost of investment is usually fairly low.
Though consoles have had higher price points this generation (which
is why $600 PS3 could not move units), most of them hover around the
$250 price point. This is because console manufacturers, with the
exception of Nintendo, do not make money on the initial sale. In
fact, each sale results in a slight loss for the company. They rely
on the sales of game software (and Blu-Ray movies in Sony's case) to
make up for the initial losses and eventually profit. In contrast,
PCs tend to have a much higher initial investment. Even lower end
gaming PCs take an initial investment of around $500 dollars
nowadays. Higher end gaming PCs will be very costly. The consumer
will likely be shelling out $1000 or more in order to play top of the
line games. It makes sense. Unlike gaming consoles where the company
has a reasonable idea of what the end user plans to do with it, PCs
have a significantly higher degree of uncertainty. Because of this,
PC manufacurers and distributors of their parts need to make a profit
through the initial sale and they do not have propritary formats to
liscense out for money (any PC will generally run any program from
any CD/DVD if it has the power to do so). Naturally, this will drive
up prices for the hardware and give consoles the advantage on that
front.

The
next thing to go over is the cost of games for the hardware. Most
console gamers are aware of the ever-prevalant $60 price tag on most
major console releases. As many of them are also aware, that cost
tends to be quite prohibitive. It is simply not feasible, espcially
in this economy, for a consumer to purchase all the games he/she
wants. Even after a few years, prices rarely drop to a significant
enough degree. There is the downloadable market which offers a more
flexible pricing system, but by and large most games are subject to
the $60 retail price. This is not the case for the PC. Most PC games
are purchased from services like Steam
and Good
Old Games.
Retail is by and large irrelevant for PC gamers. While AAA games
still tend to release for $60, they are infinitely more suceptible to
the market and tend to get marked down and put on sale and a higher
frequency. A semi-patient PC gamers will always be able to buy games
for a more reasonable price than a console gamer with the same level
of patience. And even people who are not into PC games are aware of
the massive sales that Steam throws semi-regularly. There is also the
indie scene to make note of which is more prelavent on the PC,
allowing for more variety in games at a lower coist. All this
combined gives PC gamers a clear advantage when it comes to
purchasing gaming software for their chosen device.

But
purchasing a system and getting games for it are one thing. It is an
entirely separate matter when it comes to making the games work on
the player's system. This is a trivial matter for the consoles. Since
every Playstation 3/Xbox 360 has the same system specs as any other
system, game developers can be reasonably assured as to what the end
user for their games will have and can program the games and their
development tools with that in mind. The results in nearly the exact
same performance on every console. Players will not have to fuss over
system settings and compatability. Any PS3 game will work on any PS3,
for example (unless it's buggy,
in which case every PS3, on average, will encounter the same amount
of bugs/glitches). This is not necessarily the case with PC games.
Unlike consoles, every PC will have different specs from other PCs.
The developers of these games have no idea what the end user will be
capable of playing. This means that they have to release minimum
specs required to play the game and ideal specs to get the most out
of game, shifting the responsibility of compatability from the
developers to the players. It is the player's job to make sure that
he/she has a rig capable of playing the game. It also means that PC
games have the tendency to be more fussy than their console
counterparts. This makes it necessary for users to go through
settings and the occasion forum post if the game is not working.
While developers are usually available for support (it affects their
bottom dollar if you cannot play a game), the fans are ultimately the
ones who are responsible for keeping their systems up to date and
getting the game to function, giving consoles a clear advantage here.

Another crucial topic in a discussion like this is the control
scheme behind each system. This in and of itself is a major topic of
debate among gamers: The question of the console controller versus
the keyboard and mouse. The controller is obviously a more accessable
form of play for the common gamer. It is very easy to pick up a
controller and play the desired game. There is also much to be said
for continuity of controls between games. Games tend to have similar
conventions regarding control schemes. While small adjustments
between games will be necessary, more often than not games in the
same genre will have very similar controls. Unfortunately, the
simplicity can also become a downside. Certain genres simply cannot
work with a controller. While controllers are much better for things
like racing games, they make other genres like Real-Time Strategy
nearly unplayable due the number of inputs and the degree on
precision required. On the keyboard and mouse side of things, we have
a different case. The KB&M style of control is very precise.
Depending on mouse sensitivity, (which can usually be adjusted) it is
much easier to make smaller and more accurate movements with a mouse
than with a thumbstick. Furthermore, the keyboard and mouse is more
malliable than a controller. It can used in a number of different
ways simply because there are more keys and most PC games allow for
custom controls and a greater variety of control schemes (at least
more often than console games). This is both a blessing and a curse.
While KB&M allow for more precise and customized controls, they
do not have the pick up and play ability that controllers have. The
end user will more than likely spend some time adjusting his/her
controls and fine-tuning them while a controller user can spend more
time playing the game. Going back to the PC versus console debate,
PCs ultimately win out. Not because keyboard & mouse is
inherently better (It depends entirely on what the end user wants
from the control scheme), but because the PC has access to both
because 360 controllers are compatable with PCs and there exists
software to do the same with PS3 controllers. This means that
consoles are restricted to one of the two while PC gamers have access
to both.

And now to answer the ultimate question: Which is truly superior, PC
or console? The answer is an extremely solid “What is your
preference?” If you are a more technically minded gamer who is on
lastest of the cutting edge, then PC is the right choice for you. For
a more customized experience or one that offers a greater variety in
games, then PC is again the right choice for you. However, the
console is better for those who do not want to worry to much about
technical stuff and want to just dive into a game. Price also needs
to be a big consideration. PC is better for those who prefer to take
a big initial hit and then take advantage of discounts and lower
prices on the digital market while consoles have a lower barrier of
entry, but have more expensive games. That is ultimately why this
debate continues to rage on. People have different definitions of
what is “best” and thus judge it on different criteria. This is
what fuels all the various “best ever” fanboy arguments. It is
impotant for us to take this into consideration. If there is a game
or system you do not like, keep in mind that the odds are that other
people like it for different reasons.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

(Spoiler
Alert for the Mass Effect franchise. If you are touchy about
spoilers, avert your eyes and go back to watching porn.)

Lately
I have getting on my soapbox and writing about a fairly diverse set
of topics and the list of said topics is far from empty. However,
this week I feel like doing something a bit more recreational. Since
my first attempt at something like this was so popular (and is still
getting hits to this day), and it has been a long time, another
character analysis is in order. This time I will be discussing every
Mass Effect
fan's favorite AI companion, Legion. Legion is one of the series most
interesting characters in the franchise, in my honest opinion, and
there are a couple of reasons I have for this.

But
before I get into that, we need to learn about the story of Legion.
Any character, even a synthetic one, is a product of their story. Due
to the nature of the Geth
in the Mass Effect franchise, Legion's tale is the tale of Geth, and
goes back to when the Geth gained sentience. Originally, the Geth
were nothing more than a collection of AI constructs developed by the
Quarian
race to serve them. They were programmed to always find the most
efficient ways to complete tasks assigned to them. It was eventually
realized that when Geth programs come together, they can “think”
and perform tasks better than they could individually. Reaching its
logical conclusion, these programs kept networking until they reached
a point where they gained sentience and could communicate with their
Quarian creators. This unsettled the Quarians to the point where they
started attacking the Geth out of fear. (I suppose that Quarians are
equally as aware of standard
AI horror tropes
as we are.) While some Quarians showed sympathy to the Geth, most of
them displayed only fear. This fear only grew once a Geth platform
asked its creator, “Does this unit have a soul?” Out of sheer
terror was born a war
between the two. Though the conflict was started by the Quarians, the
Geth held their own and forced them off their own home world, leading
the Quarians toward the path of a migrant species.

Shortly
after this victory, the Geth embraced a policy of isolationism
towards organic life. They had no desire to fight or even deal with
other people and just wanted to be left alone, safeguarding the
planet their creators called home. This does not mean that they were
doing nothing. In fact, they were working towards their ultimate
goal. They wished to build a system large enough to house every
single Geth intelligence on one platform, becoming as smart and
capable as they can possibly become. Striving towards their desire
for a very long time, the Geth remained little more than bogeymen to
the galactic races until the Reapers
arrived on scene. When the Reapers approached the Geth, they made
them a huge offer. In exchange for giving the Reapers aid in
furthering their goals (which makes little sense when taken into
context with Mass Effect 3), the Geth were promised to be elevated by
the Reapers and have their goals fulfillled. When trying to reach
consensus on this issue, a small collective of the Geth broke
away to
join the Reapers and were dubbed Heretics
by the many who rejected the Reapers. Then the events of the orignal
Mass
Effect game
occurred, with Commander Shepard going against Saren, the Reaper
Sovereign,
and the Geth who defected. (You know the plot, if not from my
prior articles,
then from your own experiences.) This colored the preception of
organic races towards the Geth and brought credence to the Quarian
race's belief that they were wronged by their synthetic creations.

The
isotionist policy changed once the
Normandy
came under attack by a
mysterious third party
and Commander Shepard was lost, presumed dead. Since the commander
had experience with the Heretics and was instrumental in the defeat
of Sovereign, the Geth decided that it would be prudent to make sure
the Shepard was alive. To successfully traverse the systems that
organic life inhabit, the Geth realized it would be best to send as
few units as possible and lessen their mark on the world. They built
a single platform capable of housing over one thousand individual
Geth AI constructs all networked together. This platform traced
Shepard's footsteps, looking for clues as to where he/she went and
what happened, eventually finding the Normandy's crash site and
salvaging a piece of Shepard's N7 armor, using it to repair itself
after a firefight. After concluding that Shepard died, it stayed
around to investigate another problem it discovered.

The
platform learned of a plan by the Heretics to use a virus, granted to
them by the Reapers, to rewrite the true Geth, making them accept the
Reapers as their leaders. This led the platform to a derilect
Reaper in
order to acquire knowledge on how to counteract this virus. It
encounters Shepard and is surprised to find him/her alive and well.
Seeing the commander in a tight situation, the platform takes aim at
the hoards attacking Shepard, then retreats further in to hack a
terminal and learn about the Reapers and their technology. Once
Shepard and company arrive on scene, they see the platform attacked
by a Reaper husk and disabled. They acquire a Reaper IFF for their
own purposes, collect the platform and leave.

Once
the crew make it back to the new Normandy, there is a debate as to
whether the Commander should activate and interrogate the platform,
sell it to Cerberus, or just leave it be. Since nobody in their right
mind would sell it to Cerberus, the four Shepards I played all
decided to activate and interrogate the platform. The platformed
explained its purpose and why it was sent outside the Perseus Veil,
where the Geth live. For the purpose of communicating with organic
life, the platform accepted the name Legion to distinguish it from
other Geth platforms and agreed to help Shepard fight against the
Collectors. (This is part of Mass
Effect 2's
main plot, which I do not want to get into for various reasons.)
Through several optional conversations, Legion tells Shepard, and the
player by proxy, all about how the Geth work, their “society,”
political beliefs, and the like. Eventually, it gives the player the
optional objective to head to the base of the Herectic Geth and stop
them from using the virus, with the choice to either destroy it,
blowing up the Heretic Base and all the Heretics in it, or repurpose
it to turn the Heretics back into true Geth and force them to
retreat, then destroy it. Since the individual programs inside Legion
were unable to form concensus, they trusted Sheppard to make the
final decision.

If
Legion both survives the events of Mass Effect 2 and was not sold to
Cerberus, he will become a central figure in the events regarding the
Geth/Quarian conflict in the third game. Since the Quarians attempted
to erradicate them, the Geth decided to forge an alliance with the
Reapers out of fear. The deal was that they would gain intelligence
and fighting prowess in exchange for allowing the Reapers to
completely control them. When Shepard arrives on scene to convince
the Quarians to join the war efforts, he/she is briefed on the
situation. The commander, his/her Quarian friend Tali,
and one other person infiltrate a Geth ship sending a broadcast to
all the others in order to figure out exactly why it seems like the
Geth and the Reapers are working together. They encounter Legion, who
tells them that the Reapers are using him to project a signal to all
Geth, ordering them to attack. It asks the team to free it so that it
is no longer a Reaper conduit and can begin aiding in a counterattack
on the Reapers, which Shepard does. As a show of good faith towards
Shepard and as a token of their friendship, Legion orders the ship's
engines and weaponry to be diabled, which the Quarians took as a
queue to attack with full force (despite the fact they know Shepard
is on board). Once everyone is safely back on the Normandy, gives
Shepard an optional side-mission to enter the Geth Consensus and
weaken the Reaper's influence, allowing some of the Geth to join
him/her. Afterwards, the Quarians, Shepard's team, and Legion work
together to destroy the Reaper signal to the Geth by destroying the
source, later revealed to be an actual Reaper. Once Shepard defeats
the Reaper, Legion tells him/her that it can use the Reaper's code to
make the Geth's thought processes more organic in nature, giving them
true individuality and conciousness, whether or not it succeeds is up
to Shepard. It will die regardless and it's story comes to an end
either way (using the code, for some reason, kills Legion and if
Shepard tries to stop it, Legion will fight back and Shepard will
kill him). Should Sheppard allow it, Legion will call itself “I”
instead of “We” in its final moments, showing that the process is
working and demostrating true individuality before passing away.

One
of the things that makes Legion so interesting is that it is the
player's window into Geth culture. While characters like Garrus
and Tali partially serve to further the player's knowledge regarding
how their races work, there are many other people from those races to
interact with to forge a deeper understanding than with those
characters alone. Legion is unique in that it is the one and only way
in which Shepard learns about the Geth because they are isolationists
and they are so closely networked together that talking to one Geth
platform is essentially talking to the Geth as a whole. This makes
conversations with Legion facsinating because prior to Legion's
inclusion, the Geth were always at least somewhat enigmatic. The
player fought against their forces (later revealed to be Heretics) in
the first game, but never understood exactly what caused them to side
with Sovereign. Legion gives the player an opportunity to learn about
the Geth in an interesting and creative way. On the part of the
writers, this was very cleaver.

The
other intelligent decision the writing team made, which further
raises the interest I have towards Legion, is to defy traditional
genre conventions regarding Artificial Intelligence. As I aluded to
earlier, most media that involves an AI growing sentience have it
quickly decide that its creators are too inefficient and immediately
start trying to murder everyone. As other
people on the internet
have already said, this makes very little sense. Why would the
default stance for an AI be “murder the shit out of everyone” the
moment it learns how to think for itself? Bioware knew about this
genre convention and thoughfully decided to avert it. The choice to
do that gave Legion (an other AI characters) the ability to be much
more fleshed out and interesting than similar characters in other
genres, leading into my final point.

Legion is one of the most interesting characters in the Mass Effect
series because of what it represents: The moral quandary of whether
or not sentient machines count as life in the same way that organics
do. They explore every aspect of this question from their ability to
feel emotions to whether or not they have civil rights. The ability
of the Geth to feel emotions is intentionally left up for debate.
When talking with Legion, it will insist that it does not have
emotions and is unable to feel anything. According to it, logic and
rational thinking allow the invividual Geth programs to come together
and build a consensus as to what the next course of action should be.
However, there are times where that can be called into question. For
example, when Shepard sees the N7 armor on Legion and questions it
about it, Legion explains that he used it because there was a hole
and it needed to be prepared. When further pressed to answer why it
used that in particular piece of armor over other parts more redily
available, Legion finally admits that it has no data on that subject
and cannot answer that question. In other words, it does not know for
sure. This indicates that it was a decision influenced by something
more than logic, possibly emotion. There are also other more subtle
cues from Legion in other dialogue scenes in Mass Effect 2 and 3 that
indicate possible sorrow, anger, and other emotions.

The other half of this huge moral dillema is the question of the
civils rights of synthetic beings and their ability to integrate into
society. It is a tough question that does not have a clear answer.
Characters debate this throughout the entire series. Most organic
races, particularly the Quarians, tend to fall on the side of no
rights to synthetic beings. This makes sense since they believe that
the Geth forced them off their world. They believe that it is either
impossible or too impractical to arrange for peace, despite
dissenting opinions. Legion on the other hand, tries its best to be
as considerate as it can be. However, it does not always succeed.
There are time where it says or does otherwise rational things that
can be seen as strange or ruthless to organic beings. During its
optional mission in Mass Effect 2, Legion talks about the possibility
of destroying the Geth Heretics with cold callous, which the player's
other companion comments on with shock. It also states that Shepard
and company should not feel bad about killing the Heretics because
they “do not share your pity, remorse, or fear.” Legion also
expresses a childlike inability to understand human customs, which
Shepard can chose to explain to it, such as the concepts of
cemetaries, religion, and drug use. Since it is an AI, it has trouble
understanding how these things factor into our lives and the
emotional (and physiological in the case of the last one) impact of
these things, calling into question the ability of Legion and the
geth to truly integrate with organics. Through Legion, the game
presents all the relevant information and ultimately allows the
player to decide for themselves the answer these question, adding
depth to its character and making it much more impactful.

Overall
the character of Legion is a great example of Bioware's strength.
They can write interesting and relatable characters and use them to
raise interesting moral questions. Though they havemanyweaknesses
in terms of how they tell stories, especially in recent games,
characterization has always been a strength of their brand. This is
why they were such a strong brand before the issues with Mass Effect
3. If you write good characters, then players will grow attachments
to them and want to play through your game to deepen those bonds.
Take this lesson to heart, game developers.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

(Spoiler
Alert for: Assassin's Creed 1, 2 and Brotherhood, Final Fantasy X,
XIII and Tactics, the Halo franchise, and Skyrim. As usual, you have
been warned.)

I think it can be said that games are becoming more and more
prominent as a valid form of speech and expression of ideas and
beliefs. With that in mind, what games say regarding certain topics
should reflect the dispositions of the people who both create and
consume them. One particular topic springs up with a fair degree of
regularity in video games, which I find quite interesting. That topic
is religion. Religion is a very huge topic in modern society that
permeates all of our lives, regardless of what each person thinks
regarding the subject. It influences people and their opinions. That
is why I find what games have to say on this topic to be worth
discussing and why I have made this subject the topic of discussion.

But before I begin, I want to make one thing completely, totally,
unequivocally clear. I have absolutely no problems with religion.
This analysis of the subject is intended to be as unbiased and
objective as I can possibly make it. I have no desire to offend
anybody and I hope what follows is indicative of that. What I am
going to do is look at the common themes surrounding well known takes
on religion in video games and take a look at examples of them. Then
I will try to look at the big picture surrounding this and put this
all in context.

One
of the most common themes that games touch on regarding religion is
that it leads to war. Many games build major plot points around this
concept. An example of this comes from the most recent game from The
Elder Scrolls franchise, Skyrim.
In the game, there is a Civil
War tearing
apart the nation of Skyrim. The central reason for this schism, at
least on the surface, is that the Nordic people have been banned from
publicly worshiping the god Talos,
who is the ascended soul of the first emperor of the realm, by the
Empire
because of a recent treaty with a
rival faction.
The churches were all forced to disown Talos as a god and go from
praising the Nine
to praising the Eight. The outrage and religious fervor was so great
that it lead to the birth of the Stormcloak
Rebellion. This is far from the only example of this. The
original Assassin's
Creed
was publicized beforehand as taking place during the
Third Crusade
and using it as a backdrop for their story, one of the more
famous/infamous Holy Wars in history (depending entirely on your
viewpoint), and they milk that setting for all it is worth. The
characters in the game often muse on the nature of war and the people
who fuel it, pondering the causes behind and reasons for it. They
constantly question the necessity of the Holy War and it is really
fascinating, though Ubisoft was not the first company to question the
nature of crusades in a video game.

In
fact, the Halo
series did this well before Assassin's
Creed came out. One of
the major threats to humans in the Halo
games is an organization of religious alien races referred to as the
Covenant.
This group attacks humanity because they believe that their gods have
condemned humanity and wish to have them eradicated. This is one of
the series central conflicts and even gamers who are not fans of the
franchise (like myself) have a passing familiarity with this plot
point. Even Final
Fantasy gets in on the
action. In
the
franchise's thirteenth main installment,
there are two worlds, Cocoon
and Pulse,
that each have their
own gods
that preside over them. These two worlds have been at war with each
other for years. As the game's main plot progresses, it is revealed
that the gods themselves are orchestrating the war in order to get
enough people to all die at once for the gate to the next life to be
blown wide open so they can meet the
deity who created everything.
The gods themselves organized a war between two worlds. That sends a
pretty powerful message as to the subconscious of the developers.

The other
theme that tends to surround the portrayal of religion in video games
is the theme of the church as a tool for political corruption. Going
back to the Civil War plot line in Skyrim, the political intrigue
surrounding it is relevant to this point. The founder
of the Stormcloaks
is revealed towards the end of the Civil War plotline (should the
player choose to side with him), to not really care all too much
about the Talos worship ban. It bothers him to be sure, but it is far
from his main motive. All he truly cares about is political power. To
that end, he stirred up a religious movement and used it in order to
take over the land of Skyrim as High
King.
Political motivations for religious movements is also a trope which
the Final Fantasy
franchise is very familiar with. At least two different Final
Fantasy games that I
know of (Final
Fantasy X
and the spin-off Final
Fantasy Tactics)
use this trope to great effect in their stories.

In
Final Fantasy X,
the world of Spira
is perpetually threatened by an entity referring to as Sin.
According to the reigning
religion,
Sin was born because of humanity's reliance on machines
and weaponry
and that it needs to be exorcised by following precepts and praying
for humanity's collective atonement. The game reveals later on that
it was all a complete lie. Sin was created as a way to preserve the
collective
memories of
a
fallen city
and the religion was founded in order to gain political control
through false hope that it could be defeated through strict adherence
to it. The other example of this trope in this franchise comes from
Final Fantasy Tactics.
The game revolves around the political intrigue between severalnoblehouses,
all of which practice the leading religion of the land. According to
the tenants of the
religion in question,
the leading Saint, St.
Ajora Glabados,
and his 12 disciples wielded the fabled Zodiac
Stones
to defeat a massive evil a long time ago. The modern church officials
attempt to use the Zodiac Stones to consolidate power and maintain
their influence on politics. While they are shown to be corrupt, even
they do not know the truth and genuinely believe the stones will
provide salvation. However, as the game goes on, a horrible truth is
revealed. The Zodiac Stone are conduits for the Lucavi
demons
to form contracts with humans. These human gain great powers, but are
eventually turned into nothing more than avatars for the demons will.
Saint Ajora used this long ago and merged with the demon Ultima,
head of the Lucavi, and, with that power, gained Sainthood and
massive influence on the people until well after his death. The
protagonist of the story works behind the scenes to collect the
Zodiac Stones and prevent another catastrophe from being unleashed on
the world.

My
final example comes from the Assassin's
Creed
series again, particularly the second
installment
and its follow up, Brotherhood.
A major plot point in the these games is that the main adversaries,
the KnightsTemplar,
have taken control of the
Vatican
via the papacy. They use their influence from this position to assert
control over the area. They bribe officials, threaten the people into
compliance, warping religious texts to their advantage, and many
other things. They did not make up most of this either. The people
involved, Rodrigo
Borgia
and his
family,
were notoriously evil people who abused their positions in the church
to better their own ends. The only thing Ubisoft made up was that
they were a part of the Knights Templar. It is interesting to see a
franchise comment on history the way that Assassin's
Creed
does. It provides food for though and conversation.

To be fair to game developers, there are also plenty of examples of
religions in games displayed in a more positive light as well, but
these are typically left unexplored and exist superficially and/or as
a way to give players a place to get healed and buy healing
items/spells. More often than not, when a game explores the concept
of religion intently, it is shown in a negative light. While this
would indicate that gamer culture does not think highly of religion,
I honestly do not think that is true. Many of the people I know who
play games are highly devout in their chosen faith. Most of them are
also very kind people on top of that. So then why do games tend to be
so highly critical of the concept when compared to other media? Is it because of some subconscious
reason that we are only superficially aware of? Is it because the
medium itself allows more a higher degree of nuance and intrigue in
this topic? Is it simply because corrupt churches make for
interesting plots? I honestly do not know the answer to this
question. My job is simply to highlight an aspect of games and get
you to think more of the subject. I am no where near intelligent or
unbiased enough to give a good explanation. I leave it up to you to
think and debate with yourself and others to find an explanation
behind this conundrum.